Become a Fan

May 09, 2016

In the summer of 2005,I attended my first City Council meeting where the discussion was about pit bulls (I had no idea this would be the first of literally dozens over the next decade). This suburban community was considering placing a ban on "pit bulls" and when questioned about why he was considering it, the city's mayor said that he felt the need to keep "those kinds of people" out of their nice community.

Well. What do you mean by "those people?"

A year later, I was in a different city council meeting, and one of the city leaders at the time was looking to pass restrictions on "pit bulls". When he was pressed about the undue burden this would put on owners of pit bull like dogs, he matter-of-factly responded "Well, we're not going to enforce this on people like you.". What do you mean by that? "You know".

Indeed I did.

Dogs have evolved with humans - they're bred mostly by humans and live with humans. Thus, any conversation in dogs has to naturally include the human element or the entire context of the discussion is lost. And that discussion has to include how some humans feel about other humans that are different from them. The certain type of people perceived to be the owners of certain types of dogs.

And Bronwen Dickey's Book "Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon" dedicates 267 deeply researched and wonderfully composed pages to putting the legend, myth and truth of pit bulls into the proper human context.

Pit Bull dives deep into the history of pit bulls, from the streets of the Five Points District in New York (think "Gangs of New York") to their role as chosen pet for President Teddy Roosevelt. From their role as working farm dog to film star on the Screen with Our Gang. And from the role of dog used for the cruel act of dog fighting, to beloved family pet.. And along the way, the dogs' image represented the people who kept them as pets and companions.

Pit Bull also delves into the frequency throughout history that groups in power used seizing people's pets, people they viewed were "beneath them" as a way to claim power over them -- as was often done by owners of slaves and was done by the Germans in seizing dogs owned by Jews in the 1920s and 30s.

But maybe more importantly, Pit Bull places the rise in fear about pit bulls during the 1980s and 1990s in a social and political context. It discusses the plight of urban cities following the suburban flight of the 70s and 80s -- which led to large increased in abandonment of the urban core. This led to and increase in poverty, and with that poverty came increases in violent crime (violent crime in this country spiked in 1993).

The rise in crime led to an increased need, and desire, for guard dogs in many communities. Pit Bulls, with a tough reputation and affordable access, became a popular go-to type of dog.

Socially this also coincided with the rise of hip hop culture -- which both reflected inner-city society and created it. The 24 hour news cycle that came with the rise of cable tv (and then later the Internet), created a large demand for eyeballs on news. Fear sells eyeballs (and eyeballs sell advertising) and nothing quite created fear like pit bulls. The 24 hour news cycle also played a role in the spread of myths and misinformation -- things that started as inaccurate quotes in newspapers were often spread over hundreds of news outlets that became such "common knowledge" that even research papers reported them as facts. Even today, some still have life.

(I was literally asked about whether pit bulls have locking jaws by a news reporter for a respectable news organization as recently as a month ago, in spite of pit bulls and locking jaws having been a myth that dispelled by science decades ago).

It would be easy to dismiss the negativity surrounding pit bulls as something only created by people seeking to eliminate them. But sadly, some of the most damaging elements of the pit bull reputation came from the people who were in a position to protect them, but often unknowingly or unwittingly also cited the misinformation based on the same fears and stereotypes that led people to fear them in the first place. Much of it still happening by well-meaning proponents of pit bulls today.

And while proponents and opponents have spent the past 30 years debating about the dogs, racial stereotypes and institutional red-lining has escalated the problem for pit bulls in this country (the brief section on the insurance companies alone is worth the purchase price).

But in the end, Pit Bull covers the dramatic increase in knowledge brought on by the increasing scientific literature. It also talks about many of the people that have changed the focus from "the dogs" to the "people and their pets" that are getting to some of the root causes of problems -- poverty, lack of education, discrimination, and fear for their beloved dogs.

I can't stress enough how highly I recommend Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon. I believe it is easily among the three "must read" books for anyone in animal welfare -- or for anyone making policy decisions about animals. It is one of the most thoroughly researched books I've ever read about dogs, and presented in a very readable, entertaining fashion. And whether you are a newcomer to animal welfare, or a relative old-timer, or if you make policy decisions about animal welfare, this book will make you smarter, and make you question many of the things you think you know about dogs -- and the people who own them.

Editor's Note:In the essence of full disclosure, I was given a free copy of an early version of the book to review. I also have had the pleasure of talking with Bronwen on a few occasions as she researched and wrote the book -- to the point that I would now call her a friend. But that aside, I promised her I'd write an honest review, even if I hated the book. I've read and researched a LOT about dogs, and pit bulls, over the past 11 years--- including reading dozens of research papers, tens of thousands of press articles, dozens of books and written thousands of blog posts on this topic. While I would never claim to know all there is to know on this topic, I think I'm fairly knowledgeable. That said, I learned a LOT from this book. The book is loaded with information that is presented in in a way that was easy and entertaining to digest (which isn't easy to do). And even the information I was familiar with was packaged in a compelling and interesting way. This book deserves all of the praise it receives.

Editor's Update: Tonight, as a pretty harsh reality that puts an exclamation mark on the book (and this post), my wife just got home from a city council meeting where pit bulls were on the agenda, and the conversation in this small community involved keeping "those people", "white trash" and "gold chains" out of their community. The discrimination is alive and real...and it has nothing to do with the dogs.

May 03, 2016

Missouri HB 1811 is a bill that allows cities to pass whatever animal control ordinances they choose as long as those laws do not discriminate based on breed.

Laws such as HB 1811 are often called "preemption laws" because they "preempt" cities from passing breed-discriminatory legislation (sometimes called BDL or BSL). Such laws have been passed in 19 states including: Utah, South Dakota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Nevada, Connecticut, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Minnesota, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Colorado, California and South Carolina and have increased in popularity in recent years as state politicians have sought the need to prohibit cities from discriminatory legislative practices.

Thus far, Missouri HB 1811 has had overwhelming support among lawmakers.

It passed the the House Emerging Issues Committee 10-1.

It passed the House General Laws Committee 10-0.

It then passed a full vote of the Missouri House of Representatives passed 117-17 - a whopping 87% approval.

Based on most reports, the Senate widely supports the law also.

In mid-April, the bill went to the Senate and after passing two Senate readings was sent to the Agriculture Committee (which hears many animal issues) where it has screeched to a halt due to one person, Senator Brian Munzlinger, who chairs the committee.

"No political subdivision of the state nor any local government, city, or county or agency, authority board, commission, department or officer thereof, shall enact any ordinance or issue any regulation, rule, policy, guideline or proclamation describing the relationship between persons and domestic animals as other than persons may or can own domestic animals."

While I'd welcome and support anyone suing their city with breed discriminatory laws under this statute, after discussing with several in the legal profession they feel the law is too vague to hold up in court as protecting against breed-specific policies. Even if it did, it would cost families affected by these laws (and taxpayers who pay for the court fees) tens of thousands of dollars and years in legal expenses to overturn all of these laws -- something that HB 1811 would do very swiftly if Mr. Munzlinger would simply put it on the committee agenda.

What makes this worse, is that based on most accounts, Munzlinger doesn't necessarily oppose the law -- but is actually retaliating against some that support the law because they opposed a law he tried to pass a year ago. So, in essence, the dogs, and the families that own them, have become a poker chip in the game of politics.

The bill has seen overwhelming support thus far in the legislature -- and nearly all of the public testimony has been in favor of the bill. The lone legitimate opposition has come from a handful of mayors of communities with breed-specific bans that are fighting to uphold their laws -- in spite of universal opposition from experts in animal welfare, veterinary, animal control, dog training and legal fields. These citites that are not listening to their citizens and experts in their communities are the very reason this law is necessary.

In spite of the support in the house, and the support in the professional community, it appears as if one person can have the power to derail a powerful and important bill.

But all is not lost. Munzlinger could still put on the committee agenda for this Wednesday. Or, the Senate could decide to send to a different committee -- although, given how late we are in the session, this will be a tough road. Or, the bill could be attached to another bill and voted on by the full Senate; circumventing the committee process altogether.

There is no doubt in my mind that breed-specific laws in Missouri will eventually disappear and fully replaced by behavior-based laws -- it's just a matter of time. Behavior-based laws are more fair, simpler to enforce and actually make communities safer. The public support is there. Science is there. The overwhelming opinion of experts is there. Cities are already doing it on their own accord. And when the laws have been brought before state legislators they have seen overwhelming support - 87% in favor-level support.

The bigger question is, when? How many family pets will have to be seized and killed before all bans are repealed? How many dogs will have to die before legislators step up and make it happen.

It could all end tomorrow if HB 1811 were allowed to go to vote.

I hope the legislators in the Senate will stand up and make this right. It's a chance to be on the right side of history.